House setting SC-aligned impeachment rules

The House of Representatives is set to adopt new rules for impeachment consistent with the Supreme Court’s (SC) jurisprudence to ensure that no loophole can be exploited, with a fresh impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte looming, an administration lawmaker said Sunday.

Tingog Rep. Jude Acidre announced the move ahead of the filing of a new impeachment complaint against Duterte once the one-year bar rule lapses on 6 February.

“I’m sure when things are procedural, and there’s greater clarity on the part of the House and more clear guidelines from the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, I don’t think it’s going to affect the final result, which is to make sure that we have a strong impeachment complaint should an impeachment be filed in the House,” Acidre said.

The House leader expressed confidence that amending impeachment rules will help ensure that any future cases against the Vice President are “procedurally airtight and built on clear guidelines” to avert a potential recurrence of the botched impeachment case filed against Duterte last year during the 19th Congress.

“Once we approve the rules, because we haven’t approved the rules for impeachment yet for the 20th Congress, that would be more or less cognizant of the direction set already by the Supreme Court and its latest jurisprudence. But nonetheless, that is not to preempt what the final resolution would be on the pending motion for reconsideration,” Acidre added.

In July last year, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the impeachment case overwhelmingly passed by the House against Duterte on 5 February, deeming it “unconstitutional” for violating the one-year bar on impeachment cases.

The high court also flagged several procedural issues, including that the complaint was filed and adopted on the same day. The court raised concerns that lawmakers might not have been given ample time to peruse the complaint before affixing their signatures to endorse it to the Senate for trial.

Overreach

Despite the decision, the legal dispute over the impeachment has yet to be fully resolved, as the House filed a motion for reconsideration contesting the ruling.

The Supreme Court ruling triggered concerns across sectors, with pro-impeachment lawmakers and former SC Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna accusing the high court of overstepping Congress by imposing a new set of rules on how an impeachment case should be initiated — a prerogative reserved to the House.

Azcuna, a member of the Constitutional Commission that crafted the 1987 Constitution, argued that the Supreme Court’s role is only to interpret provisions of the charter already specified in rules governing impeachment.

However, he said the court introduced additional requirements, including that the impeachment complaint be properly circulated among lawmakers before signatures are gathered, which is not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

The House’s stance echoed that of Azcuna.

Specifically, Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Adiong — also an administration ally — agreed with Acidre that the Supreme Court decision dwelt only on procedural technicalities and not on the substance of the impeachment complaint against Duterte.

“But let me just clarify that the petition, I mean the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the impeachment, was more on the technicality and not on the merits of the case that we have filed,” Adiong said Sunday.

The SC ruled that the House’s expediting the fourth impeachment violated Duterte’s right to due process, as she was allegedly deprived of the opportunity to counter the allegations against her, and that the transmittal of the articles of impeachment to the Senate was irregular.

The ruling further stated that when the 19th Congress ended without the House acting on the first three complaints, the same were “effectively terminated and dismissed,” to which the one-year bar was reckoned.

215 votes

The House prosecution panel, however, countered that the one-year bar was “never circumvented” because initiation was only triggered when the fourth complaint mustered more than one-third votes, a prerequisite in the impeachment process.

The House impeached Duterte on 5 February last year after 215 lawmakers signed the petition, charging her with graft and corruption, bribery and betrayal of public trust, among others, over the “questionable” use of her P612.5 million in confidential funds and an alleged death threat against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Prior to that, three impeachment complaints were filed against the Vice President in barely two weeks in December 2024.

The 215 votes were more than double the required one-third threshold to bypass committee hearings in the House, paving the way for the transmittal of the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial — a shortcut allowed by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, however, said the Senate has no jurisdiction over the impeachment case since it was void ab initio for violating Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5, which prohibits the filing of more than one impeachment case against the same official within a one-year period.

Acidre and Adiong said the House will formulate robust impeachment rules that comply with whatever posture the Supreme Court adopts, which could become the standard for the next Congress if the court again rejects their motion for reconsideration.

“Without conceding the pending motion for reconsideration, we will have to come up with rules that are ‘Supreme Court-proof’ and, in a way, cognizant with what the indications presented in the latest ruling on the third mode,” Acidre said.

“But what we can assure you is, should there be any adoption of new rules covering impeachment processes and procedures, this would be in compliance,” Adiong said.